Your search

In Aotearoa New Zealand, the arrival of imperial ideologies in the 19th century led to devastating land-loss and cultural marginalisation for M?ori at the hands of settlers and successive governments. This article examines the damaging effects of a Crown-imposed treaty claims settlement system designed to address injustices inflicted on M?ori. Interview data from a Taranaki-based (a West Coast region, central North Island of Aotearoa New Zealand) hap? (sub-tribe) that engaged with this system foreground the adversarial nature of this system and its continuation of trauma. We argue that, while the process provides voice to M?ori, it does so within a paradigm that pits kin-groups against each other, unjustly limits redress and fails to resolve tension. A tikanga framing provides insights into how tensions are set up and ways tikanga (underlying values and principles that guide practice) can be used outside the redress system to seek healing and resolution.

Dr Nin Tomas wrote a considered and substantial piece entitled “Indigenous Peoples and the Māori: The Right to Self-Determination in International Law - From Woe to Go” for the New Zealand Law Review published in 2008.² In her conclusion she notes two ways in which self-determination has been implemented by the state: first, by “greater tolerance and benevolence along a series of principled guidelines”,³ and, second, as a “peoples-centred, enabling principle that allows Indigenous peoples to re-establish their social, economic and political institutions”.⁴ In 2010, New Zealand reversed its position and supported the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Declaration).5 With this in mind, this short piece revisits the notion of self-determination by examining the differing dynamics of concepts of external and internal self-determination before a short discussion on pluralism and the relationship between tino rangatiratanga and self-determination. In conclusion some thoughts are offered on a potential form of self-determination that could be consistent with the exercise of tino rangatiratanga.

In this paper I argue that Maori should cite and rely on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in their legal and political claims as this process can lead to the internalisation of these norms even when states reject them. The paper draws heavily on the case study of the use of the Declaration in a Waitangi Tribunal claim relating to Maori self-determination.

Arguments for constitutional reform to recognise Rangatiratanga and Tikanga Maori.

Māori leaders in New Zealand continue the battle to end British colonisation. The aim is to restore the balance between Māori and the Crown guaranteed in the treaty that Māori and the British Crown agreed to in 1840 so that we can live in peace and harmony. Early European visitors subjected our ancestors to numerous atrocities. Relying on the Doctrine of Discovery, they illegitimately usurped our power and dispossessed us, leaving us in a state of poverty, deprivation and marginalisation. They fabricated myths to justify their criminal activities, set up an illegitimate parliament with unfettered powers, passed laws legalising their crimes and then covered it up with amnesia. They established the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975 to inquire into breaches of the treaty, not realising that it would dismantle the myths and look beneath the amnesia. Governments then instigated the ‘treaty claims settlement’ process to extinguish all Māori claims, remove Māori rights and entrench colonisation. Research undertaken has shown that Māori loathe this process and do not accept that settlements are full and final. Research on constitutional transformation has identified a possible solution. The first step towards that goal involves implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

‘There is a need for a mindset shift away from the pervasive assumption that the Crown is Pākehā, English-speaking, and distinct from Māori’, wrote the permanent commission of inquiry investigating breaches of New Zealand’s founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi. ‘Increasingly, in the twenty-first century, the Crown is also Māori.’ This paper argues that ‘the Crown in right of New Zealand’ is in need of redefining. In the 19th and parts of the 20th century Māori leaders and institutions were often understood as separate from the Crown. But that understanding is shifting, and this paper argues the shift is leading to a new understanding of the Crown in right of New Zealand.

The primary focus of this thesis is to explore the reasons for Ngati Porou participation in the wars in New Zealand during the 1860s. Early writers sunnised that the alliances between tribes like Ngati Porou, Te Arawa and the lower Whanganui iwi and the settler governnent were due primarily to a sense of loyalty to the crown. Repetition by later historians has reinforced this notion in New Zealand folklore and historiography. While recent retrospective histories reveal a growing awareness that the motivation behind the alliances was more complex, no analysis of tribal motives worthy of the confidence of Maori has yet been recorded. This thesis initially sets out to detennine whether the historical orthodoxy is founded at least for Ngati Porou. It presents evidence showing that significant aspects of the Ngati Porou story have been misunderstood and misrepresented by writers who have been unable to source or who have felt it unnecessary to properly canvass Ngati Porou views and records. To date, tribal historians have on the whole refrained from presenting a tribal perspective, not because the infonllation does not exist, but from a desire to keep such knowledge in the tIibal arena where it is most relevant. Continued irritation, however, caused by historical publications that fall short when trying to comprehend the nature of Maori participation, has resulted in a freeing up of infonnation by those who jealously guard their family 's manuscripts, and others who retain the oral testimonies within the tribe, so that a re examination is made possible. This thesis also generally seeks to link Ngati Porou 's involvement in war with leadership pattems that emerged within the tribe during the period 1865 - 1872, though this dimension of Ngati Porou history is not canvassed exhaustively here. In times of crisis existing leadership patterns were challenged and as often as not new leaders emerged to lead the tribe. Perhaps the finest military leader produced by Ngati Porou during the Hauhau encounters was Major Rapata Wahawaha. His role in shaping Ngati Porou's modern identity is a major theme running throughout this thesis. It is argued that his leadership and philosophy characterised the contribution by Ngari Porou to theatres of war that followed the 1860s. It is proposed that such a contribution was both strategic and calculated to achieve gains for Ngati Porou. Moreover, the wider question is raised: why, since the 1860s, has Ngati Porou been so ready to join the battlefront and to stand alongside the Crown? The thesis contends that far from being motivated solely by loyalty to the Crown, Ngati Porou entered into an alliance with the Crown in order to protect and to advance tribal interests.

The emphasis on strengthening Maori Crown relationships in the Public Service Act 2020 and the establishment of Te Arawhiti signalled a new era in the public service's interactions with tangata whenua. Carl Billington investigates whether this is changing the way public sector agencies approach their interactions with Maori.